Just to be absolutely clear: I don't say Context 2 is narrow SOM. I say some people take a too narrow SOM view of Context 2.
As usual, we're actually agreeing. Ian On 8 Aug 2013 20:55, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: > Arlo said to Adrie: > > ...Mostly, I think I agree with Paul, but am rather saddened by how this > paper has been used, either with Ian's statement that context two is > "narrow SOM", or David's insistence that these contexts are "Dynamic/east" > and "static/west". I think the biggest source of my frustration is that > Pirsig's ideas form a coherent whole, that these views, or voices, > reflecting epistemological and ontological (which is Paul's distinction, > and one I support) positions, and do not represent two 'separate but valid > interpretations' of the MOQ, but that when they are "combined as phases" > form a coherent whole that "enacts a major expansion and evolution of the > modern Western mythos". > > > > dmb says: > > Exactly. Instead of understanding the MOQ's central distinction WITHIN a > unified and coherent picture, it is misconstrued in various ways to produce > two opposed interpretations. Instead of trying to strike a balance between > the static and the Dynamic, there is this bogus battle wherein static > quality is denigrated in favor of pure flux. According to this bogus view, > static values, especially intellectual values, are regarded as an > impediment to be killed, as a prison to be destroyed and as an illusion to > eliminated. > > If I understand what Paul is saying about the second "context," those who > hold the bogus view are basically just rejecting the ontological structure > of the MOQ. They don't just put DQ at the center of this static structure, > they misconstrue its centrality to oppose the static structure. But, as > Pirsig says repeatedly, in both ZAMM and LILA, both are absolutely > necessary. > > “Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they > demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, > nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic > progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of > freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of quality, > the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic > Quality can survive without the other.” (LILA, p.121) > > To say, as Pirsig does, that "truth is a static intellectual pattern > within a larger entity called Quality," is a simple and elegant way to say > that truths exists in a relation to DQ. More specifically, it's a clean and > neat way to say that intellectual truths are subordinate to DQ. This second > context, this static structure, already has DQ built right into it. These > are not two separate interpretations or two separate ways of looking at the > MOQ. Static and Dynamic are the central terms. They represent the first and > most important distinction of the MOQ. It's a hell of thing to get wrong > being many further mistakes will inevitably follow from such a blunder. > It's not exactly trivial or nit-picky, you know? These two elements are > suppose to work together in a coherent picture. > > Contrary to Marsha's anti-intellectualist readings, Pirsig explains what > it means to "kill" static intellectual patterns just a few pages later... > > "Zen monks' daily life is nothing but on ritual after another. Hour after > hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those > static patterns to discover the unwritten Dharma, they want him to get > those patterns perfect. The explanation for this contradiction is the > belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them > with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma > chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them > to sleep. That is, you MASTER them with such proficiency that they become > an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely > forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous > boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." > > > And he was saying the same thing about structure and freedom back in ZAMM > too. It's the key to his central metaphor - motorcycle maintenance - and to > any other kind of fixing. Intellectual static patterns are NOT the enemy of > creativity. Quite the opposite. They're not enough all by themselves but > they are necessary. > > > "If you want to build a factory [or an argument], or fix a motorcycle, or > set a nation right without getting stuck, then classical, structured, > dualistic subject-object knowledge, although necessary, isn’t enough. You > have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have to have a > sense of what’s good. That is what carries you forward. This sense isn’t > just something you’re born with, although you are born with it. It’s also > something you can develop. It’s not just ‘intuition,’ not just > unexplainable ‘skill’ or ‘talent.’ It’s the direct result of contact with > basic reality, Quality, which dualistic reason has in the past tended to > conceal.” ZAMM 284 > > > "In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic > Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had > always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They > offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, > since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to > see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on > Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality > alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos." > > It's easy to see that some thinkers might prefer to emphasize the creative > and subversive aspects (DQ) of the MOQ while others might prefer to > emphasize the stabilizing and unifying aspects (static quality). But both > sides risk distortion. The first group risks an incoherent relativism and > the second group risks a world too tightly woven or too rigidly fixed. The > first one is too dynamic and the second one is too static. The way to > strike a good balance between these two tendencies is to see that life is a > continuous process of adjustment and adaptation wherein the static and the > Dynamic work together in an ongoing relationship. Creativity is not simply > a matter of rejecting static patterns or our structured reality but rather > eliminating sticky old ideas in favor of better ideas. That's how you get > growth and change rather than destruction, degeneracy or chaos. > > > "Value is the predecessor of structure. It’s the preintellectual awareness > that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on the basis > of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an > understanding of the value source from which it’s derived. One’s rational > understanding of a motorcycle is therefore modified from minute to minute > as one works on it and sees that a new and different rational understanding > has more Quality. One doesn’t cling to old sticky ideas because one has an > immediate rational basis for rejecting them. Reality isn’t static anymore. > It’s not a set of ideas you have to either fight or resign yourself to. > It’s made up, in part, of ideas that are expected to grow as you grow, and > as we all grow, century after century. With Quality as a central undefined > term, reality is, in its essential nature, not static but dynamic. And when > you really understand dynamic reality you never get stuck. It has forms but > the forms are capable of change." > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
